West Seattle development: 1st listing, post-Triangle-area upzoning

For the first time (that we have seen in public listings, anyway) since the recent Triangle-and-vicinity upzoning/rezoning was finalized by the City Council, one of the upzoned lots has been put up for sale. It’s a 11,500-square-foot site on the east edge of The Junction at 4731 40th SW (map), south of Bank of America. County records say it is owned by the Andresen family; the listing says it is offered for $1.6 million. Here’s the flyer; it notes that the property was rezoned to NC3-85 (the latter is the maximum height) in December, 20 feet higher than previously allowed, and the listing says, “New zoning will allow density of plus or minus 70 units with views from upper floors.”

9 Replies to "West Seattle development: 1st listing, post-Triangle-area upzoning"

  • Kgdlg February 7, 2012 (8:43 am)

    This is a perfect example of how a rezone adding extra density works to spur development in a market economy. This family was probably waiting for the moment when they could achieve maximum value for their land in this depressed economy right now. It will be interesting to see whether other listings pop up and whether he competition drives prices down or not. This is a smart place to add density since it is so close to the bridge. I can see people living here without a car since the bus line downtown, even with the recent bridge madness, is relatively quick.

  • Peter on Fauntleroy February 7, 2012 (9:28 am)

    Great news for our neighborhood! The absurdly restrictive height limits in Seattle have long been an impediment to development, and I’m sure several other property owners have been waiting for rezoning to pass to make it worthwhile to sell or develop their property. Now that we’re starting to get more reasonable height limits, we can hope that the many vacant blighted properties in the Triangle area will finally be developed.

  • old timer February 7, 2012 (1:41 pm)

    From the real estate flyer,
    there are still 2 lots between this 4 lot parcel and BofA.
    Wondering what will come of those.

  • Angel February 7, 2012 (4:34 pm)

    I’m not so sure this is a good thing. Projects like this are only going to add to the congestion and strain resources. To name a few of many issues: we already have overcrowded schools (some at twice their capacity), vacant apartments that were supposed to be townhomes, and some days it takes 45 minutes to an hour to get to I 5 or downtown (about 4 miles from the Triangle). (Most) people aren’t going to give up their cars even with a good transit system (which we don’t have).

    Felonies, misdemeaners, and major crimes seem to be more commonplace. More incidents are reported on the blog.
    It seems we can’t handle the growth that has been ramping up since around 2005. People wont rent or buy units in other parts of W Seattle but they will because it’s the Triangle? The vacant, half completed building on the SE corner of 35th and Avalon is near the triangle and is a good example.
    I just don’t think West Seattle is engaged in smart growth. They are putting the cart before the horse.. trying to turn a neighborhood into a big city in a short amount of time. Not trying to fight with anyone but I’ve just been sickened by what I have seen these past few years, “Hole” Foods for example. I know I am not alone when it comes to not wanting to turn into Ballard or Belltown (though we’re well on our way) but there’s nothing the average person can do about it except move and that is just not right.

  • JoAnne February 7, 2012 (8:07 pm)

    Another disaster for West Seattle community and Junction area homeowners.
    Our neighborhood is already traumatized by insane rates of development and exploding density. We don’t need any more people jammed in here.
    Big win for developers, the money-grubbing city council, and the synchophants who support both of them.

  • Diane February 7, 2012 (9:55 pm)

    just drove by to see location; so wonder if the “City Watch” apartments will have to change their name; looks like their big selling point, the views of downtown, will be completely blocked by this project

  • kgdlg February 8, 2012 (9:32 am)


    I agree with some of your concerns. I think we are at a tipping point in Seattle – on the verge of becoming a “bigger” city than we have been, thus generating the number of people, and political will, to actually do something about our traffic and metro system. Witness the following as a result: tunnel beneath the city, light rail expansion, rapid ride bus. Now, is WS pretty screwed in much of this, yes. We lost a lot with the Monorail evaporating. Last I checked, there is no way to stop capitalism, and so developers will continue to be who they are. With the vacancy rate across seattle (for rentals) well below historic averages (2% in some neighborhoods), now is the economic time for a lot of people to invest. (Homeownership is a completely different problem).

    I take issue with the idea that more people = more crime, though. As the WSB consistently reports, we have lower crime levels in many areas, than we ever have had historically. I think what you are experiencing is the fact that we HEAR more about crime now, do to great resources like this blog, therefore, we think it is more frequent. The opposite is actually true. While we have had a surge in home robberies lately, from what i understand the numbers are still historically low. I am one of those people that feels safer with more people around me. SO I like density in that regard.

    If you don’t think Seattle has engaged in smart growth, you should go spend some time in Houston, where they have NO zoning, and no growth management. Strip mall after strip mall. WHile we are not perfect, I don’t think you can argue we haven’t tried to be thoughtful in our planning.

  • JoAnne February 8, 2012 (7:24 pm)

    For people who like density, why don’t you just move to an area that is already dense? Our neighborhood is already struggling with overcrowded parks, schools, and especially roads.

    In the utopian fantasies of our delusional city council (which are held up by doublespeak terms like “smart growth”), the crowding will eventually be so terrible that we will all abandon our cars. Then Richard Conlin can finally feel like the environmental hero of his self-obsessive dreams.

  • JoAnne February 8, 2012 (7:30 pm)


    “‘Neighborhood planning does not mean the council does whatever it hears from the neighborhood. We cannot abdicate our point of view in representing the entire city,’ said Councilmember Richard Conlin.”

    As if other areas of the city were lobbying for taller buildings near Roosevelt HS. What this means is that Conlin represents not the people of the city, but the 1% developers and their ilk.

Sorry, comment time is over.